To think Richard III blatantly killed the Princes in Tower?

We know loads. We know they disappeared in 1483. We know that at that time, they were heavily guarded by Richard III in a fortress. We know the boys’ mother fled to sanctuary because she was afraid of Richard, and we know she only let her youngest son out after guarantees from the Archbishop and because Richard was threatening to break sanctuary.

We know rumours swirled around the country that Richard had murdered them. We know he lost loads of support when he couldn’t produce them alive. We know their mother allied with Henry VII. We know bones of two children were buried where More said they’d be, and that they match the ages the boys were in 1483.

Perhaps Charles will allow the dna tests.
If the boys under the Tower aren’t the Princes then I wonder if he’ll allow it of the ones at other locations ie Windsor

If nothing comes of that then will they be locating Warbecks grave at Austin Friars. The lady and team that found RIII in Leicester might have found an exact location there ( although given the amount of rebuilding and war damage it’s highly unlikely ).

Even if the children under the tower are found to be the boys. It proves they died in the Tower. It doesn’t prove how they died though.
The mystery continues

Yet if you look at Richard’s Home policy he sought to make the country a fairer place for the poor. The Council of the North and many other policies were successful.

Executing people in those days really wasn’t unusual. ( We know nothing of his thoughts on those actions ).

I think he had a bash at claiming to be Richard of York too, at one point. One of them (either Warbeck or Simnel) definitely switched claims...possibly to get Margaret of Burgundy on side...? Can't remember the details!

both her sons to leave the Sanctuary of Westminster Abbey to go into Richard III's care.

Nope. Edward V wasn’t in Sanctuary at that time (though he was born in sanctuary earlier in the Wars of the Roses). He was travelling from Ludlow to London with his uncle and half brother when they were intercepted by Richard.

As for letting his younger brother out of sanctuary to (seemingly) get ready with Edward V for the coronation, I doubt EW felt she had much choice, TBH

Richard grew up totally devoted and completely loyal to his older brother, Edward IV. I don't think he underwent a massive personality change once he became king.

Also, don't forget that Elizabeth Woodville, the young princes' mother (who absolutely despised Richard and was incredibly suspicious and paranoid) yet was happy to allow both her sons to leave the Sanctuary of Westminster Abbey to go into Richard III's care.

She did thus because Richard III had a reputation for unimpeachable integrity.

I'm with you OP. The usual perpetrator in any crime is the person who gains the most from it.

Interesting @CorvusPurpureus

Simnel was pretending to be Edward, Earl of Warwick, not Edward V.

Of course he did. As David Starkey and nearly all historians of that period say: he’d have been crazy not to.

I don’t understand the modern need to believe that he was a good man. He needed to get rid of threats to his power - morals didn’t enter into it.

My theory's natural causes.

Mine isn't, but if I was looking for evidence to support it, the way they gradually stopped being seen in the grounds would be consistent with gradually worsening health.

My theory's natural causes.

They were terrified, traumatised children - the older boy had existing health issues with his teeth - it was an era of high child mortality - their carers probably didn't care very much (& would have surmised that RIII didn't want them to survive to manhood).

This was highly inconvenient for RIII. It would be a propaganda godsend to his assorted enemies if he announced their deaths. It would also destabilise the delicate rapprochement he was building with EW.

Don't forget EW was a tough, pragmatic broad. She survived being left a widow with 2 dc from her first marriage, to a bloke who fought on the wrong side in the Wars of the Roses, & came out married to the King of England! She then seems to have been quite the operator when it came to advancing her unpopular family.

I can see her deciding to play the long game - nothing she could do for her boys, but honestly they were probably safer in the Tower than being paraded around the countryside at the head of a rebellious army, & she'd have hoped to get them abroad if she could. Meanwhile, she could help her dds by coming out of sanctuary & setting them up at court.

The boys die - RIII hushes it up. If he'd survived Bosworth he would have announced their deaths, & the country would have grumbled but accepted it, but he needed it kept quiet whilst he saw off Richmond.

After Bosworth...no one could find the kids. Because they'd been discreetly buried in the Tower staircase, & their attendants were not about to admit that to HVII - they would have been scapegoated for killing them on RIII's orders. Plus his new queen was their sister, & might have wanted to avenge her poor neglected little brothers.

They make up a cock & bull story that RIII moved the boys from their care & they've no idea what happened after that. HVII doesn't really believe that, but he certainly doesn't want then popping up alive, so he says nowt. This accounts for him taking later pretenders like Warbeck & Simnel reasonably seriously - he can't prove they aren't genuine!

I'm sure both RIII & HVII would have happily done away with them given the chance. But RIII couldn't afford the scandal between 1483-5, so had it on his 'to do' list for once everything had settled down, & then HVII couldn't find them because they were already dead & hidden under the stairs when he took the throne...

And I guess I mean by good or evil that we don't know, if he did it, whether it was the Shakespearean lust for personal power, whether it was done to broadly keep the Yorkist interests safe, or because he looked to maintain peace in England. Did he weep bitter tears of self loathing or barely turn a hair? Was a misguided sacrifice with a political intent to stop civil war or a naked attempt to gain power for him and his own son? There's still plenty to think about and ways to spin it!

I think this is really important in defining Richard as good or evil. The context is so easily missed - this was a time of enormous instability and war. If Richard had left Edward V to become king with the unpopular Woodville family in the ascendant and potentially challenging his protectorate, it just perpetuated the chaos. With him as an adult king, who had successfully ruled in the north already, it was far more likely that he could preserve some stability (and keep his faction in power of course). Had he inherited as an adult from a childless sibling that might have happened. It feels like the wrong call now but it's probable that there was no way that a child inheriting at that point in time could lead anywhere good.

Can anyone recommend a good, factual book about the Woodvilles? They sound a fascinating family!

This!

Killing them certainly wasn't a good option. Unfortunately, not killing then also wasn't a good option.

They've found a lot of bodies there over the years. To date they've typically been older than the late middle ages. I'd bet these two are the same.

Maybe we'll find out one day!

😂

I disagree that More’s staircase claim is the only reason to think those are the bodies. The boys disappeared from the Tower: any pair of unidentified adolescent skeletons found in the Tower would have some likelihood of being them.

Even in medieval Britain, there was still abhorrence and disgust at murdering children. John’s reputation was even more sullied after the disappearance of his nephew Arthur. He was widely believed to have ordered him blinded and castrated-thereafter he disappeared in the care of William de Braose. His wife accused John of murdering his nephew and her punishment was death by starvation along with her son. There was widespread disapproval and disgust. Same with Richard. Imo, he ordered it and then it followed him like a curse and distorted his judgement. By the time he died, he was not popular.

Which doesn't match Thomas More's account, and his claim on where the bodies (temporarily) were is the only reason to think those bodies are the princes. (And even that doesn't match becaise he says they were subsequently moved.)

The wiki entry also states this - so I am interested in where the poster stating one of the skeletons was female is getting that from?

The bones were removed and examined in 1933 by the archivist of Westminster Abbey, Lawrence Tanner; a leading anatomist, Professor William Wright; and the president of the Dental Association, George Northcroft. By measuring certain bones and teeth, they concluded the bones belonged to two children around the correct ages for the princes.[3] The bones were found to have been interred carelessly along with chicken and other animal bones. There were also three very rusty nails. One skeleton was larger than the other, but many of the bones were missing, including part of the smaller jawbone and all of the teeth from the larger one. Many of the bones had been broken by the original workmen.[31][32] The examination has been criticised, on the grounds that it was conducted on the presumption that the bones were those of the princes and concentrated only on whether the bones showed evidence of suffocation; no attempt was even made to determine whether the bones were male or female.[3]

@GoldenRosebee nothing in that wiki entry suggests it’s “general consensus” that the skeletons in St George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle are the boys. Those remains have been subject to even less examination than the ones in Westminster Abbey.

That wouldn’t be though.

that was just a theory, after all.